On 8/20/2007 8:20 AM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
> On 8/20/07, Jay Levitt <lists-rspec at shopwatch.org> wrote:
>>> I'd like to avoid that because it would be extra noise and it
>>> shouldn't be necessary. The generated specs work absolutely perfectly
>>> for me as/is (I'm on OS X). There have been a couple of bugs related
>>> to regexps and windows paths over time, but they've either been
>>> resolved or await more feedback from users in the tracker.
>>>>>> I'm thinking about other ways to be explicit about this (besides the
>>> verbose ":behaviour_type => :view". What if we added methods like:
>>>>>> describe_model
>>> describe_view
>>> describe_controller
>>> describe_helper
>>>>>> Or support the first argument being a Symbol:
>>>>>> describe :model, "Thing" do
>> I'm not clear why we need any new syntax at all - isn't this just a bug
>> related to some configurations, if it works for David but not for Zach
>> (both on OS X)?
>>>> Good point. Let's figure out why it doesn't work for Zach first.
>> Zach: What's the relative path of the spec? Did you move it after it
> was created?
If Zach could create a screencast or precise step-by-step, I can attempt
to reproduce it tonight on OS X, Windows XP, Cygwin, and/or Ubuntu 6.06.
Jay